MovieChat Forums > Texas Killing Fields (2011) Discussion > Some clarifying for those who are confus...

Some clarifying for those who are confused...

posted 11 years ago by kaysild
9 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers ahead obviously!

Ok so I keep reading how they left out all this stuff and how people are confused, not sure how bc I pretty much understand everything on one viewing but maybe some people aren't as use to how homicide cases unfold as I am.
Ok so Anne's mom was a drug addicted hooker using her house to do guys, so she always kicked Anne out. Anne only sold things or got in trouble bc she was trying to survive her poverty stricken life, and her upset stomach she always had, probably from malnutrition. (People keep askin why she needed that, milk of magnesia is for upset stomach) but generally she was a good girl just tying to survive.
Lavon and white dude killed Debbie mills, who was ne of their hookers, probably she hid $ from them and they accidentally beat her to death, just a guess. anyway the car they hid in the black ladies garage had her DNA on it so they kidnapped the black lady knwn as 'mama or whatever she was called, daughter, as a hostage. This was just another homicide case they were working on during the movie to show how the any cop isn't interested in small time stuff (Ill explain further down) and to confuse the viewers as to who is really the killer.
Kristin Lanes murder was done by the creepy mill worker dude, and bc Anne was always with the cops he made the brother go with him to kill her too, that's why they had Kristin lanes cell phone etc, so the creepy dude with glasses was the serial killer of the fields, for the recent murders anyway
Notice the first homicide was not found in the fields, it was outside some rundown neighborhood in the main detectives actual jurisdiction
The partners ex-wife is the only detective whose actual jurisdiction was the killing fields, but I guess since the two main detectives are supposed to be such awesome detectives ( or atleast I assume that's what their intentions for her borrowing them were) she was always asking them for help on the serial cases.
Everything was pretty much explained pretty clearly if you pay attention, I'm not sure why everyone keeps commenting its so confusing, they showed it like an actual case folds out, from the start you are thrown in not knowin much about the victim or circumstances, and you go from there. Everything revealed itself tho so unless they literally spelled it out idk what more people want! Your not meant to know more than what's shown about the cops' backgrounds, but it does give you some insight into their lives, the one from NY obviously was tortured by an unsolved serial murder case, and about not being able to save a victim,(he recalls this to his wife if you paid attention) but the story wasnt about that case, it's only brought up to show viewers why he is so hell bent & determined on helping the serial murders of the killing fields instead of worrying about two-bit pimps like lavon and rule. (As I mentioned earlier why they were part of the movie
The other dude obviously was married to the other girl detective and that's hopefully self explanatory... Ok hope that helps!

[–] cdjunkee-1 11 years ago

Good explanation. People will be confused thinking it should take place in the 70's. The two killers in this film are not responsible for the past killings. Just recent ones. These types of murders had been going on for years in that area. It's a bit more confusing since bits and pieces of real past crimes are sprinkled throughout the movie. (The killer did call the Police station and let his Victim scream for help to taunt them. But in reality they saved her.)

As for the movie's plot I could see how it was confusing. I understood the movie more watching it a second time.

[–] kincaid-5 11 years ago

Actually, they didn't save Kirsten Lane, the girl screaming on the phone. A young mother called the cops during a home-invasion, and she was rescued. Then, when she and her daughter were at the station giving a statement, the killer called on Kirsten's phone and let them all hear Kirsten's death. She was the one found in the swamp, with her hands chopped off, the one whose missing finger led to the fight in the bar.

http://redkincaid.com

[–] wait_dream 11 years ago

So who was the mom attacked by? The brother and the guy with the glasses? Or the two pimps? The former would make sense. Just curious since there were two of them.

[–] HenryCW 11 years ago

I think that single mom with a kid was meant to be another intended victim of the bespectacled guy and Little Ann's brother. The two pimps were looking for prostitutes and it seemed unlikely that they wanted to kidnap the mom. All the same, this is yet another example where the film fails to follow up or clarify the matter later.

[–] HenryCW 11 years ago

While mostly in agreement with the OP’s explanations of the plot, I think the main issue is whether the parallel plots and developments make for a good script. It might be possible to go backwards and explain everything, but the parallel developments cause confusion, especially in a first viewing. There are certainly better ways to introduce red herrings than by having the additional parallel (but mostly unrelated) plot of the two pimps. The latter, by the way, was not given a satisfactory closure. Mike had a shootout with the two pimps, and later the guy with tattoos shot the black dude. Presumably he was not caught and in fact was not even mentioned again in the film.

I don’t quite agree that they wanted to kill Little Ann because she was with the cops so often. In fact that would be the best of reasons to leave her alone. The idea of grabbing Little Ann at the grocery store was silly, and making those phone calls later to taunt the cops was perhaps close to suicidal.

[–] chris-rogers2 10 years ago

I agree with this and am grateful for the OP's help (tho could have done without the slightly patronising comments!). I didn't get that there were two killer strands but agree the unresolved thread of Rule was unhelpful.

Great film though, never heard of it till tonight's ad hoc viewing thanks to a TV listings mag. And Mann's daughter too.

www.chrismrogers.net, a website for architecture and visual culture

[–] freydis-e 11 years ago

Yes, thanks for taking the trouble to post this, kaysild. I found it interesting reading. The reason I didn't follow every little thing at the time was they tended to mumble their lines at times and I didn't hear everything that was said, so I missed some stuff. It was easy enough to follow the general drift though, and in a film so flawed by police incompetence, the silly abduction of Ann for no reason, etc. it maybe even worked better that way.

[–] fridaynight-1 9 years ago

Thank you so much! Now I don't have to finish this film.

[–] zaltman_bleros 8 years ago

Well aren't you bright, Sherlock.